5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and until his conviction lived in Vologda.
6.  On 26 November 2001 the Vologda City Court convicted the applicant of assault occasioning grave bodily harm and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment.
7.  On 10 January 2002 the Vologda Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
8.  From 20 January 2002 to 24 June 2004 the applicant was serving his sentence in Sokol correctional colony OE-256/4, Vologda Region (учреждение ОЕ-256/4).
9.  Following his admission to the correctional colony the applicant claimed not to have been given a full set of prison clothing. Nor was he given personal hygiene items (toothbrush, toothpaste, toilet paper, disposable razors).
10.  On 19 March 2002 the applicant was transferred to unit no. 10. Cell no. 17, where the applicant was held, accommodated over fifty inmates, which was more than twice the cell’s design capacity.
11.  On 15 March 2003 the applicant was transferred to unit no. 11. Reveille in the unit was 4 a.m. and lights-out 8 p.m.
12.  On 27 May 2003 the applicant was transferred back to unit no. 10. Cell no. 18, where the applicant was held, accommodated sixty inmates. Among them were six HIV-positive inmates and several inmates suffering from tuberculosis. Due to the lack of regular supply of water the inmates had to use water from a fifty-litre drinking water tank. Both healthy and sick inmates took water from the tank with their own mugs. Both healthy and sick inmates went to the bathhouse at the same time. The applicant lived in constant fear of contamination. The administration of the colony provided the inmates with a brochure, ‘Protect yourself’ counselling the detainees on safe practices to avoid contamination.
13.  The applicant worked in the sewing workshop during the daytime.
14.  On 4 April 2004 the applicant complained about a blister on his foot. He stated that he was given an adhesive plaster with an expired date.
15.  On 21 April 2004 a telegram arrived for the applicant, informing him of his mother’s decease. The telegram was handed to the applicant on 23 April 2004.
16.  On 24 May 2004 the applicant submitted a sealed envelope to be sent to the Sokolskiy District Court (Vologda Region). The envelope was not sent to the court immediately but was opened, and three enclosed documents went missing.
17.  The applicant complained about the day schedule in unit no. 11 of the OE-256/4 facility. Following the Prosecutor’s inquiry into the matter the day schedule was changed to reveille at 5 a.m. and lights-out at 9 p.m.
18.  He complained to the Vologda Regional Prosecutor’s Office that the OE-256/4 facility did not have adequate medical services, and that medication supplied was date-expired. In its replies of 19 September 2003 and 28 September 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office informed the applicant that inquiries had been made about his allegations and that they had not been confirmed. It was established that on 29 January and 22 and 24 March 2004 the applicant had complained of pain in his right foot, that dried blisters were discovered on examination, and that the applicant was advised on the required treatment.
19.  The applicant also submitted a complaint that his correspondence had been interfered with, and that notification of his mother’s death had been delayed. In its reply dated 29 September 2004 the Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the actions of the facility’s authorities had breached domestic law, and informed the applicant that disciplinary measures had been taken against those responsible.
20.  The applicant brought proceedings against the OE-256/4 correctional colony for compensation for damage incurred because of the above-mentioned violations. He sought leave to appear before the court.
21.  On 29 August 2005 the Sokolskiy District Court, in the applicant’s absence, having heard a representative of the correctional colony, a representative of the Ministry of Finance, witness statements and other evidence, dismissed the action. The relevant part of the judgment read as follows:
“The court has therefore established that in the period the applicant was serving his sentence in facility OE-256/4 from 2002 to 2004 there had been breaches on the part of the facility’s administration as regards the handling of the [applicant’s] correspondence, provision of clothing, the day schedule, and late notification of the telegram. At the same time it has not been proved by [the applicant] that as a result of the [above omissions] he had sustained any psychological distress, that his health had deteriorated, or that there had been any serious consequences ...
[The applicant’s] assertion that he had sustained psychological distress as a result of his detention in the same premises with HIV- and tuberculosis-infected detainees can not be considered well-founded. HIV-positive prisoners... are detained in the same areas as other detainees, in accordance with Article 101 of the Penal Code. Those infected with active tuberculosis are detained in specialised facilities. Those being treated for tuberculosis and those in remission serve their sentences in the same areas, therefore their presence on the same premises as the applicant had not created a risk to his health. ...
It was established at the court hearing and following previous inspections conducted by the Vologda Regional Prosecutor’s Office that the medical unit of the OE-256/4 facility had provided the applicant with the necessary medical assistance. It had not been established as fact that the applicant had been treated with date-expired medicine or had sustained any harm as a result.
As to the applicant’s claims of overcrowding, it has not been established that during his time in the OE-256/4 facility the number of detainees exceeded the design capacity of the colony’s premises, including cells 17 and 18.
Regard being had to the above, the court concludes that the applicant did not experience physical or psychological distress through the fault of the OE-256/4 facility authorities which would attract compensation under Article 151 of the Civil Code and the European Convention on Human Rights. ...”
22.  The applicant lodged an appeal, complaining, among other things, that the District Court had not granted him leave to appear. The applicant asked to be taken to the appeal hearing.
23.  On 9 November 2005 the Vologda Regional Court, in the applicant’s absence, upheld the judgment on appeal.
24.  On 31 March 2004 the applicant, among other detainees, was subjected to a strip-search. During the search the facility’s director for security S. administered three blows to the side of the applicant’s back, the last one knocking the applicant down.
25.  Following the applicant’s repeated requests, on 25 October 2004 the Vologda prosecutor in charge of supervision of compliance with laws in penal institutions opened a criminal investigation in connection with an offence under Article 286 § 3 of the Criminal Code (abuse of power involving the use of violence). The applicant was granted victim status in those criminal proceedings.
26.  By a final judgment of the Vologda Regional Court of 17 May 2005 S. was found guilty of abuse of power and sentenced to two years and six months’ imprisonment. He was obliged to pay the applicant 3,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
27.  On 4 February, 9-11 March, 23-25 March, 28 March and 5-6 April 2005 the applicant was taken to, and held in, the temporary detention wing at Sokol police station, Vologda Region (ИВС Сокольского ГОВД) to appear at the trial of S.
28.  The temporary detention wing had nine cells: cell no. 1, measuring 22.7 sq. m, cell no. 2, measuring 14 sq. m, cell no. 3, measuring 17.4 sq. m, cell no. 4, measuring 17.2 sq. m, cell no. 5, measuring 7.1 sq. m, cell no. 6, measuring 7 sq. m, cell no. 7, measuring 7 sq. m, cell no. 8, measuring 15.4 sq. m, and cell no. 9, measuring 6.9 sq. m. The Government were unable to provide information as to the particular cells where the applicant had been detained during his stay.
29.  All cells were equipped with artificial lighting consisting of two 150‑watt lamps. They were also equipped with natural extract-and-input ventilation. All cells were heated by a central city heating system. The average temperature in the cells in winter was above 18 degrees Celsius.
30.  The cells were equipped with lavatories, separated from the living area by a partition and thus enabling the detainees to answer the calls of nature in privacy.
31.  The cells were equipped with individual sleeping places. During his stay the applicant was provided with bedding.
32.  The temporary detention wing had a sanitary inspection room equipped with a shower. All those brought to the facility were obliged to take a shower upon their admission. Their stay never exceeded three days, so no further showers were made available.
33.  The detainees were provided with drinking water on demand. They were served hot meals three times a day. The meals were cooked under contract in the catering facilities of the Soldek ZAO. In support of their submissions the Government provided a copy of an agreement between the Sokol police station and the Soldek ZAO dated 3 March 2004. Under that agreement the contractor was obliged to prepare set lunches for detainees (consisting of one first course, three second courses, 600 g of bread, 30 g of sugar and 1 g of tea) by 11.30 a.m. on each working day. The agreement was valid until 31 December 2004 and could be extended for another year if neither party expressed a wish to dissolve the agreement.
34.  All cells were equipped with metal dining tables and benches fixed to the floor.
35.  The temporary detention wing had its own exercise yard. The applicant was taken outside daily for an hour’s exercise.
36.  The applicant submitted that on 4 February 2005 he was detained in cell no. 9, which was equipped with four sleeping places. From 9 to 11 March and on 28 March 2005 he was detained in cell no. 6, which was equipped with four sleeping places. From 23 to 25 March 2005 the applicant was detained in cell no. 1, which was equipped with seven sleeping places. On each of those occasions the applicant was detained in the cell alone. The applicant did not contest the size of the cells as indicated by the Government.
37.  Each cell was lit dimly by a 40-watt lamp, situated above the door to the cell and protected by a grid. There was no natural lighting in the cells, as the windows were covered by metal shields. The few holes pierced in the metal shields did not let in much daylight. The window vents were also covered with metal shields and could not be opened.
38.  The temperature in the cells never went above 15 degrees Celsius.
39.  The lavatories in the cells were squat toilets (hole in the floor). They were not separated from the living area of the cells. A cold-water tap above the toilet was used for flushing the toilet and any other washing.
40.  The applicant was given a sleeping place, a mattress, a pillow and a blanket. He was, however, not given other bedding or towels. Neither was he given any personal hygiene items.
41.  On no occasion was the applicant provided with an opportunity to have a shower.
42.  The applicant had no access to drinking water. He could not boil the tap water because there was no electric kettle in the cells.
43.  The applicant submitted that he only had white bread and a cup of tea for breakfast. For lunch he was given soup and a second course (pasta with a slice of sausage or potatoes with a meat cutlet), rye bread and hot water. Dinner consisted of the rest of the cold leftovers of pasta or potatoes, rye bread and hot water. The daily ration did not include any fruit or vegetables (except potatoes). Overall, the food was extremely meagre and monotonous.
44.  Although the cells were equipped with dining tables, in the absence of any benches the applicant had to eat sitting on his bed.
45.  The applicant claims that, despite his requests, he was never taken for outside exercise.